FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 29 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1175 6 N on -A rg um en t C ale nd ar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 72 3- CV-P-NE MAR Y C AT HE RIN E G RAH AM, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us AL BE RT O G ON ZA LE Z, in his official cap aci ty as Att orne y

Gene ral , U.S. De partm ent of Justice, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Ap peal from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt f o r t h e No r t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f Al a b a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 29, 200 5) Be fo re HU LL , WI LS ON an d C OX , C ir cu itJu dg es . PE R C URIAM :In the district court, Gr aham a sserted a sexual harra ssment hostil e wor king e nvironment 1 claim. On appe al, howeve r, she doe s not contend that the district cour t erre d in gr anting summa ry jud g me nt o n th at c la im. Although Graha

m claims that this case is a “ direc t evidence ” ca se, she pr ovides no direc t 2 evidenc e of discr iminatory intent on the part of the FB I . See Early v. Champion Int’l Corp. , 907 F.2d 1077, 1081 ( 11 Cir. 1990) (holdingthat direc t evidence require s neither infe renc e nor th presumption to establish the ultimate fac t at issue). 2 Th e P l ai n t i ff

, M ar y C at h er i n e G ra h am, ap p ea l s fo l l o wi n g th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s grant of sum

m ary j udgm ent i n favo r of A lberto Gonzales in his official ca pacity as Attorney Ge neral and head of the F ederal B ureau of I nvestig ation (the “ FBI” ). G raha m c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in aw ar din g sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o th e FB I on her cl ai m s of gen de r dis cr im inatio n and re ta liatio n base d on T itl e V II of the Civil Rights Ac t of 1 964, 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e et se q. (“ Title VI I”). Beca use she has 1
n o tc a rr i e dh e r

b u r d e n o n e i t h e r

c l a i m, w e a f

f i rm. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Killinger
v. Samford Univ. , 113 F . 3d 1 96, 198 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7)
. T hi s co urt w ill a ff irm the th dis tr ic t c ourt i f, c onstru ing the ev ide nc e in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng party , no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l fa ct ex ist s, an d th e m ovant i s e nti tle d to j udgm en t as am atte r of

law . F ed
. R. Ci v. P . 56(c )) ; W ill iam P en n L ifeI

ns. Co
. v . San ds , 912 F. 2d 1 359, 136 1 ( 11 Ci r. 199 0)
. Inc as es suc h a s th is o ne , w he re the pla int if f se ek s th to prove dis parate tr eatm ent m otivat ed b y prohib ited discrim ination , T itle VI I requires the plaintiff to establish a prim a facie case in the absence of direct e vidence. 23

T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se in re spon se to a m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t in a disparate treatm ent case un der Title VI I, the plaintiff m ust bring forth evidence that ( 1) she is a m em

be r of a pr ote ct ed cl as s; (2 ) she suf fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t action; (3) the em

ploy er tre ated sim ilarly

situated em

ploy ees w ho w ere not m em bers of he r p r o t e c t e dc l a s s d i f f e r e n t l y ; an d( 4 ) s h e w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y qu a l i f i e dth a tthe
em pl oym en t ac ti o n sh ou ldno t h av e b een ad ve rs e. McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 , 93 S
. Ct
. 181 7, 182 4 ( 1973 ); H oli fie ld v
. R en o , 115 F . 3d 1555 , 156 2 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7) ; Co utu v . M art in C ty . B d. O f Cty . Co m m ’r

s , 47 F . 3d 1 068, th 1073 (11 Cir. 1995 ). The district court assum ed without deciding that Gr aham had th established a prim a facie case in accordance w ith the M cD onne ll D ouglas standard
. W e do the sam e. O nc e the pr im a fa ci e ca se ha s be ene sta bli she d, the bur de n of

pr oduc tio n–bu t not persuasio n–sh ifts to the defen d an t t o put forth a legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory
reas on forth e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac t i o n. Reeve s v. S an de rs on Plu mbi ng

Pro d., Inc. , 5 3 0 U . S
. 1 3 3 , 1 4 2 , 1 2 0 S
. C t . 2 0 9 7 , 2 1 0 6 ( 2 0 0 0 )
. I n th i s c a s e , th e F B I c l a i ms that it refused to prom ote Gr aham because of her

poor judgm en t i n the workplace , an d th at se ve ra l st at em en ts b y

c ow orke rs int er

vie w ed dur ing the tw o ba ck gr ound inv es tig at ion s le d it

to thi s c onc lus ion
. G raha m doe s no t di sput e that the se state m en ts4

we re m ade. Rather, she argues t h at they we re inacc urate and m otivated bygender
an im us, and thus shou ld n ot h av e be enc onsi de re d. G raha m m isunde rs tands the standard by w hic h th e FB I’ s a ct ion s are e va luate d. Inc ontra st t o w ha t G raha m ap pe ar s to be lie ve , the co urt do es not c onc er n it se lf w ith
w he the r the F BI w as co rr ec t in m ak ing its de ci sio n. In ste ad , the c ourt c onc er ns i tse lf
on ly w it h wh et he r t h a t de ci si on was aleg al on e. Ni x v. W LC Y R adi o/R ahal l Co m m un. , 738 F . 2d 1 181, 118 7 ( 11 Ci r. 198 4)
. In th e sam e ve in, the c ourt do es not th
co nsi de r the a cc ur ac y

of the inf orm at ionbe fo re the F BI w he n w e ev al ua te it s em plo ym en t de ci sio n; w e co nsi de r onl y w he the r the F BI r el ie d on this i nf orm at ion in m ak in g i ts de c i s i on . Se e E lro d v
. Se ars , R oe buc k, & Co
. , 939 F . 2d 1 466, 147 0 (1 1 Cir . 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. th The F BI’ s burden in establ ishin g that it had a legitim ate, nond iscri m i n at ory reason for m aking its decision is “ exce ed i n g l y light .” Mee ks v. Computer A ssoc. Int’l , 15 F . 3d 1 013, 101 9 ( 11 Ci r. 199 4)
. T he FB I ne ed onl y es ta bli sh that c le ar

and th
reas on ab ly spe ci fic fact s m ot iv at edit s d eci si on . Ch apm an v. A la. T rans . , 229 F . 3d 1012 , 1034 -3 5 (1 1 Ci r. 2000 ). T he dis tr ic t co urt’ s m em or an dum opi nio n la y s o ut th in sufficient detail the facts upon which the FBI based its assessm ent of Gr aham as an em ploy ee w ith po or professional judgm en t , and we w ill not repeat them here. (R. 4-92 at 21-26. ) Th ese stated fa cts and the resulting conclusion s of the FBI are5

sufficient to m eet the Mee ks standard
. T ha t G raha m dis put es the a cc ur ac y

of the se stat em ents and the m otivatio ns of thos e w ho m ade them does not create a factual iss ue a s to w he the r the FB I ac tua lly re lie d on the m . T hus, the F BI ha s m et it s li ght bur de n to put

f orth a le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y ba sis f or it s de ci sio n. Once an em

ploy er has establ i s h ed that its decision had a re asonable, nond isc ri m inator

y ba sis , the bur de n r et

ur ns to the pla int if

f, w ho m ust nowe sta bli sh thr ough“ sig nif

ic an t pr obativ e ev ide nc e” that di sc ri m inator y int en t ne ve rthele ss m otivated th e decision m aker, an d t h at t h e stated rea son was m erely a prete xt used to di sg ui se th is in te nt . E lro d , 9 3 9 F. 2 d at 1 4 7 0 . We ag re e wi t h t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de te rm inatio n th at

the re w as no “ sig nif

ican t pr obativ e ev ide nc e of pr et ex t. ” T hus, Gr aham failed to m eet her burden, and summ ary ju d g m en t wa s appropriate on her g e n d e r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. As to her c laim

of reta liation, Gr aham

also m ust establish a prim a fa cie ca se. To do so, G raham

m ust es t ab l i sh that (1) she engaged in statu torily protected expression; (2) she suffe re d an adverse em ploym ent action; and (3) the protected
ex pr es si on an d t he ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n are cau sa ll y li nk ed
. R ane

y v. V isi on Guard Serv., Inc. , 120 F . 3d 1 192, 119 6- 97 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7)
. G raha m c la im s th at

the th ultim ate w ithdrawal of her conditio nal em

ploym ent offer

wa s in r et al i at ion for herGra ham also cla ims that other events c onstitut ed re taliation, such as the timing of the 3 inv e sti g atio n, the se le c tio n o f t he same pe rs on

to p e rf or m bo th o f h e r b a c kgro un d inve sti g atio ns , and the f ailure to provide her w ith an opportunity to respond to the stateme nts made about he r. Eac h of these c ontentions is withoutmerit, as ea ch of the cited “a ctions” wa s merely an investigation protocol used at the F BI . None c ould be consider ed adve rse e mploy ment actions any more than the establishment of 12:00 to 1:00 as the investig ator’s lunc h hour. 6 fi lin g an E E O c om

pla int a ft er the f ir st s uc h wi thdraw al
. H ow ev er , G raha m f ai ls t o 3 establish any causal link betw een the ultim ate withdraw al of her c o n ditio nal
em pl oym en t o fferan d h er fi li ng of a n EEO co m pl ai nt . Aft er Grah am

fil edhe r EEO
com plaint, the FBI m ade the sam e decision for subs tantially the sam e re ason as it had
m ad e be fo re she f

ile d th e co m

pla int
. It is dif

fi cu lt to im ag ine how the E E O c om pla int ha d any appr ec ia ble e ff ec t onthe se co nd de ci sio n if that de ci sio n w as ide nti ca l t o th e f i r st on e. Se e E

re nbe rg v . M

et hodi st H osp. , 357 F . 3d 7 87, 793 ( 8 Ci r. 20 04 ). th Mor eo ve r, the ult im at e de nia l of he r em plo ym en t of

fe r cam e m or e than eigh t m onths after her E EO filing. T he Suprem e Court has rec ogni zed that, e v en as s um ing th at tem poral proxim ity suffices to show causation, s uch events m ust com e closer to ea ch ot he r in ti m e th an th atto be cau sa ll y li nk ed
. Clark Ct

y. Sch
. Dist. v. Bre eden , 532 U. S. 268, 273, 121 S. Ct. 1508 , 1511 (2001) (citing with approval circ uit court cases invalid ating tem

poral proxim ities of t hree and four m onth s). Thus, because Gr aham ha s pu t f orth n o e vid en ce of

c au sa tio n, he r re ta liatio n c la im f ai ls.7

Gr aham ad d i t i o n al l y co n t en d s th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n aw arding sum m ary ju d g me n t af

t eren g ag i n g i n cr ed i b i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n s an d“ i g n o ri n g p l ai n t i ff ’s
ev ide nc e. ” W e fi nd the se c ont en tio ns m er itl es s. AFFIRMED.